This matter came before the Virginia
State Bar Disciplinary Board on the 8th day of May, 2003, to be heard
on the Agreed Disposition of the Virginia State Bar and the Respondent, Sang Kuen
Park, Esquire, based upon the Certification of the Fifth District Committee Section
II. The Agreed Disposition was considered by a duly convened panel of the Virginia
State Bar Disciplinary Board consisting of James L. Banks, Jr., Esquire, Joseph
Roy Lassiter, Jr., Esquire, Bruce Taylor Clark, Esquire, V. Max Beard, Lay Member,
and Karen Ann Gould, Esquire, Second Vice Chair, presiding. Noel D. Sengel, Esquire,
representing the Bar, and the Respondent, Sang Kuen Park, Esquire, by his counsel,
Timothy J. Battle, Esquire, presented an endorsed Agreed Disposition.

Having considered the Certification
and the Agreed Disposition, it is the decision of the Board that the Agreed
Disposition be accepted, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board finds
by clear and convincing evidence as follows:

STIPULATIONS OF FACT AND DISCIPLINARY
RULE VIOLATIONS

1. At all times relevant hereto,
the Respondent, Sang Kuen Park, Esquire (hereinafter Respondent), has been an
attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

2. In 1993, Jae W. Jeong, a Korean
national, hired the Respondent to assist him and his wife, Young Joo Jeong,
in obtaining visas that would allow them to work and live legally in the United
States, and, ultimately, to become permanent residents. The Jeongs hired the
Respondent based in part on the Respondent's claim that he was an expert in
immigration law. About ten percent of the Respondent's law practice actually
consisted of immigration law work.

3. Immediately after being hired
by the Jeongs, the Respondent filed applications for work (H-1) and dependency
(H-4) visas for the Jeongs which initially were rejected by the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Respondent failed to file
the correct application fee for Mr. Jeong's application which caused both Mr.
and Mrs. Jeong's applications to be denied initially. When Mr. Jeong asked the
Respondent about the status of the applications, the Respondent told Mr. Jeong
that the applications had been delayed because Mr. Jeong's employer, Pen, Inc.,
had been late in providing the correct information.

4. In May of 1993, the Jeongs' work
and dependency visas were issued. They were valid until April 30, 1996, and
could be renewed for one additional three-year period. The Respondent continued
to represent the Jeongs in obtaining their permanent residency visas. By August
of 1995, the Respondent had all the necessary documentation, including an affidavit
from Mr. Jeong's employer, which had been executed on July 28, 1995, for filing
a complete I-140 application for permanent residency for the Jeongs. The Respondent
informed the Jeongs that he had filed the appropriate application with the INS.
For the next eighteen months, during numerous conversations, the Respondent
told the Jeongs that he was monitoring their application and that the application
was moving through the process and that all delays in the application's finalization
were just part of the process.

5. In early 1996, while waiting
for the INS to process their permanent residency application, the Jeongs realized
that their visas would expire on April 30, 1996. They asked the Respondent to
file applications that would extend their visas for another three years. The
Respondent waited until five days before the Jeongs' visas expired to file the
applications, and filed the extension application with an expired labor certification.
The applications were denied. The Respondent then obtained an affidavit from
Mr. Jeong's employer, placing the blame on the employer for the out-of-date
labor certification, and proceeded to appeal the INS decision.

6. In February of 1997, after the
Jeongs raised the issue of the delay in their case with Mr. Moon, the managing
attorney of the Respondent's law firm, a search of the firm's files showed that
the Jeongs' application for permanent residency had been placed in a file with
a similar name which file had been closed and placed among the firm's closed
files.

7. On February 18, 1997, eighteen
months after he told the Jeongs that he had filed their application, the Respondent
actually filed the application with the INS. On or about February 25, 1997,
the Respondent admitted to the Jeongs that he had, in fact, just filed their
application with the INS, and had not done so in September of 1995 as he told
them. The Jeongs asked the Respondent for copies of what he had actually filed.
The Respondent could not locate a copy of a dated cover letter he had sent to
the INS when he filed the application, so he manufactured one, with the date
of February 6, 1997. The Respondent presented the letter to the Jeongs as a
copy of the actual cover letter he had sent with their application. The Jeongs
fired the Respondent and hired other counsel to handle their immigration matter.

8. The Jeongs hired the law firm
of Sherman & Fromme to file a malpractice suit against the Respondent. Prior
to the filing of the suit, the firm gave the Respondent notice of the claim
and demanded that the Respondent inform his malpractice carrier. The Respondent
did not do so in a timely manner, and the carrier refused to provide coverage.

9. The malpractice case, Jeong,
et al. v. Park, et al., L178097, was heard by a jury in the Fairfax County
Circuit Court in early January of 2000. On January 7, 2000, the jury found for
the Jeongs and awarded them $35,000.00, including $20,000.00 in punitive damages.
The Respondent appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court, but certiorari
was denied. The

Respondent has paid the judgment
in full. After the trial, the Sherman & Fromme law firm and the presiding
judge both filed complaints with the Bar against the Respondent.

The Board finds by clear and convincing
evidence that such conduct on the part of Sang Kuen Park, Esquire constitutes
a violation of the following Disciplinary Rules:

DR 1-102. Misconduct.

(A) A lawyer shall not:

(4) Engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on
a lawyer's fitness to practice law.

DR 2-104. Specialists; Limitation
of Practice.

(A) A lawyer shall not hold himself
out publicly as, or imply that he is, a recognized or certified specialist except
in accordance with either DR 2-101, DR 2-102 or DR 2-103, or except as follows:

(1) A lawyer admitted to practice
before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation
Patents, Patent Attorney, or Patent Lawyer, or any combination of those terms,
on his letterhead and office sign. A lawyer engaged in the trademark practice
may use the designation Trademarks, Trademark Attorney, or Trademark Lawyer,
or any combination of those terms, on his letterhead and office sign, and a
lawyer engaged in the admiralty practice may use the designation Admiralty,
Proctor in Admiralty, or Admiralty Lawyer, or any combination of those terms,
on his letterhead and office sign.

DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness.

(B) A lawyer shall attend promptly
to matters undertaken for a client until completed or until the lawyer has properly
and completely withdrawn from representing the client.

It is hereby ORDERED that the Respondent
shall receive a Public Reprimand, upon entry of this Order, as representing
an appropriate sanction if this matter were to be heard.

It is further ORDERED that, pursuant
to the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, Part 6, §IV, ¶13(B)(8)(c)(1),
the Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall assess costs.

It is further ORDERED that a copy
teste of this Order shall be mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, to the Respondent Sang Kuen Park, Esquire, at Moon, Park & Associates,
7617 Little River Turnpike, Suite 930, Annandale, VA 22003, his last known address
of record with the Virginia State Bar, and by first class mail, postage prepaid,
to Respondent's counsel, Timothy J. Battle, Esquire, at P.O. Box 19631, Alexandria,
VA 22320-9631, and to Senior Assistant Bar Counsel Noel D. Sengel, Virginia
State Bar, 100 North Pitt Street, Suite 310, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Enter this Order this _____ day
of _____________________________, 2003.